Ross Barkley

[The Other Blues]

Oh, you were doing very well.

But the main difference is that we are no longer fighting relegation and creditors. We may need to sell the boy, but only if he refuses to sign a contract. We have no fiscal need to sell.

If Ross decides he doesn't want to stay, then fair play, we'll sell up, because anything else would be stupid, but let's not pretend that we must sell him for anything short of that.

What d'you mean I was doing so well ?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm saying that Everton will be forced to sell due to their financial situation. No, I'm saying that eventually you'll have to sell because he'll want to leave. It's nature, unless you think he's got the Le Tissier gene, in which case fair enough.

 

[Jxg]

How long you going to keep a world class player without CL football. Realistically.

Very simple, my friend.


We ask for £60m for Ross. Hard to argue with that price considering he's English and his level of talent and potential. When Lallana goes for £25m, and Shaw £30m, a much higher price for Ross is justified.

How does this stop him leaving? FFP. You're already at your limit. You're now at the stage where you have to sell to buy, just like we had to for the last two decades. However, we're well in the black and no sales are needed this summer. Bit of a role reversal, I guess.

You (amongst other clubs) cannot, under FFP, afford Ross. As a result, he will not move. Doesn't matter if he wants to move, because the club will play hardball and demand his asking price (i.e. Lescott - remember being mugged off for him?)

 

[FTY]

Ross Barkley's had one good season under his belt and the rumours abound about him leaving. How many years did you get out of Rooney? How many did you get out Jeffers? When players reach a certain level of hype, especially English players, they will move. I didn't create these imbalances in football so there's no point in getting arsey because you don't like hearing the truth.

Stop being a condescending tit you only started supported City when the Arabs bought them.

 

[RaleighBlue]

What d'you mean I was doing so well ?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm saying that Everton will be forced to sell due to their financial situation. No, I'm saying that eventually you'll have to sell because he'll want to leave. It's nature, unless you think he's got the Le Tissier gene, in which case fair enough.

Ah, in that case, you may be right.

I think an awful lot will depend on the next two-three seasons. If we win Europa and can offer him CL football, and maybe get a stadium move underway, and get a decent administrative team to improve our revenues, then we may be able to hold on to him.

If not, you're probably right, but let's not count our chickens.

 

[IRO1977]

How long you going to keep a world class player without CL football. Realistically.

We'll take that as it comes, but as he's newly turned 20, is a fan and is still giddy about playing for the club in any interview he gives, i doubt it's anything we need to worry about in the next 3 or 4 years

 

[Moomin]

I agree I think he would make it at City but he wouldn't replace Toure next season so he would be a squad player because I don't know how much you've watched him bit he really can't play any other position than the ACM.

A year's development at this time is critical.

If you did sell Toure then with Aguero not fit and probably not likely to be fit for large parts of next season if ever again then he would have the weight of the team looking to challenge for everything plus a huge transfer fee to justify. He's still a young kid and not exactly the most confident personality either. That kind of pressure wouldn't be good for him.

He might be ready in another season but by then he will have wanted to sign a new contract so he's earning more than 15K a week and we'll hold all the cards.

And that's what's holding up the contract. Kenwright doesn't want to put in a release clause.

Sure I would have preferred not to be in this position but you make it sound like he would have to leave if City came calling. I don't think the player would want it and Everton wouldn't want to sell.

The point I was making about Baines was that he wanted to leave and Martinez refused to sell because Utd refused to meet our valuation.

Have you just made this up?? Admit it, you have.

 

[bizzaro]

"European authorities have a mandate and are pressuring UEFA"

Sorry but you haven't the first clue what you're talking about. FFP is on the line of falling foul of so many EU anti competition and restraint of trade laws it's not even funny. The EU would be delighted if FFP went away, unless you think that governments hate guys like Mansour turning up and paying hundreds of millions in taxes on the money they pump into their football clubs.

And as I said, UEFA can get out as many microscopes as they want. As of next summer we'll be turning the type of profit which will allow us to spend 100 million a summer if needs be without having any problems.

It is you my friend who hasn't a clue. So bad its unfunny.




Lisbon Treaty. 13 December 2007

"The Union can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement Member States' actions in:"

• education, youth, sport and vocational training

http://www.uefa.org/stakeholders/europeanunion/

Lisbon Treaty and specificity of sport
The Lisbon Treaty was the first EU treaty to include an article on sport. As the EU does not have a legal competence in sport policy, the article is limited to supporting and encouraging the actions of the member states of the EU. However, the treaty provision can be seen to indicate the strengthening of the notion of specificity of sport.

UEFA and the Council of Europe
UEFA has been a long-standing member of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) of the Council of Europe. EPAS is a platform which aims at fostering exchange between sports organisations and national governments as well as promoting good governance in sport.

In September 2011, UEFA President Michel Platini gave a keynote speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The fight against match-fixing, eliminating violence in the stadiums, the need for financial fair play in European club football and the importance of national teams were the main topics of his address. Mr Platini urged the Council to help seek solutions and to make a lasting and fruitful contribution to ensuring football's future well-being. UEFA also welcomed the Council of Europe's landmark recommendation on match-fixing which showed that the Council is at the forefront in tackling this threat to sport.

European Commission communication on sport
Published in January 2011, the European Commission communication on sport was welcomed by UEFA as a positive development for sport and the future of European football. The communication proposed ways in which the new European Union competence in sport, created by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, could be implemented. In the communication, the European Commission gave its backing to many of UEFA's core values and key policies, including:

• UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations

In March 2012, the European Commission confirmed that UEFA's financial fair play regulations were in line with European Union State aid policy. Michel Platini and vice-president of the European Commission and commissioner for competition Joaquín Almunia published a joint statement on the issue, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the commission in the field of state aid.

The Lisbon treaty allows the European Union to direct institutions to regulate football. The European Authorities are directing UEFA to regulate. The European Union has already said it has reviewed FFP and it supports it entirely.

From both competition and the EU internal market perspective.

So you're talking nonsense.


If UEFA have difficulty from the likes of Manchester City taking them to court you can guarantee the European authorities will encourage member states to legislate through a European Directive on the issue.

So big balls Manchester City ain't so big after all.

 

[The Other Blues]

Interesting that. In global terms, well in UK terms as well, the City brand is nothing compared to Utd, Chelsea Arsenal. Probably Liverpool as well come to that. So, based on the fact, (I think), that you have had huge losses, I know due to the regeneration etc etc, where is this massive profit coming from?

Depends upon how you view a "brand". Broadly speaking what we're talking about for the sake of FFP money. Not the number of Facebook supporters a club has, or the number of shirts they supposedly sell in places where knock off shirts are all the rage. So if you study City's income and then compare it to Arsenal and Chelsea you'll see that we have similar revenues from similar revenue streams across the board. Ultimately this is about sustained success, which is what City's business model is based on. To do this you need to get yourself to a place where you no longer need the owner to continue to invest in the footballing side of things. This is where we are getting to.

 

[roydo]

Depends upon how you view a "brand". Broadly speaking what we're talking about for the sake of FFP money. Not the number of Facebook supporters a club has, or the number of shirts they supposedly sell in places where knock off shirts are all the rage. So if you study City's income and then compare it to Arsenal and Chelsea you'll see that we have similar revenues from similar revenue streams across the board. Ultimately this is about sustained success, which is what City's business model is based on. To do this you need to get yourself to a place where you no longer need the owner to continue to invest in the footballing side of things. This is where we are getting to.

The ability to attract sponsors globally. Not mainly from your owners. Match revenue, (you have already said the Arabs keep ticket prices low), that sort of thing. Your TV money is similar to everyone else, but I just dont see how your matchday revenue and global sponsorship is a patch on some other clubs. Certainly cant see how it is enough to generate a profit allowing you to spend £100m plus every summer.

 

[The Other Blues]

It is you my friend who hasn't a clue. So bad its unfunny.




Lisbon Treaty. 13 December 2007

"The Union can carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement Member States' actions in:"

• education, youth, sport and vocational training

http://www.uefa.org/stakeholders/europeanunion/

Lisbon Treaty and specificity of sport
The Lisbon Treaty was the first EU treaty to include an article on sport. As the EU does not have a legal competence in sport policy, the article is limited to supporting and encouraging the actions of the member states of the EU. However, the treaty provision can be seen to indicate the strengthening of the notion of specificity of sport.

UEFA and the Council of Europe
UEFA has been a long-standing member of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) of the Council of Europe. EPAS is a platform which aims at fostering exchange between sports organisations and national governments as well as promoting good governance in sport.

In September 2011, UEFA President Michel Platini gave a keynote speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The fight against match-fixing, eliminating violence in the stadiums, the need for financial fair play in European club football and the importance of national teams were the main topics of his address. Mr Platini urged the Council to help seek solutions and to make a lasting and fruitful contribution to ensuring football's future well-being. UEFA also welcomed the Council of Europe's landmark recommendation on match-fixing which showed that the Council is at the forefront in tackling this threat to sport.

European Commission communication on sport
Published in January 2011, the European Commission communication on sport was welcomed by UEFA as a positive development for sport and the future of European football. The communication proposed ways in which the new European Union competence in sport, created by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, could be implemented. In the communication, the European Commission gave its backing to many of UEFA's core values and key policies, including:

• UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations

In March 2012, the European Commission confirmed that UEFA's financial fair play regulations were in line with European Union State aid policy. Michel Platini and vice-president of the European Commission and commissioner for competition Joaquín Almunia published a joint statement on the issue, emphasising the consistency between the rules and objectives of financial fair play and the policy aims of the commission in the field of state aid.

The Lisbon treaty allows the European Union to direct institutions to regulate football. The European Authorities are directing UEFA to regulate. The European Union has already said it has reviewed FFP and it supports it entirely.

From both competition and the EU internal market perspective.

So you're talking nonsense.


If UEFA have difficulty from the likes of Manchester City taking them to court you can guarantee the European authorities will encourage member states to legislate through a European Directive on the issue.

So big balls Manchester City ain't so big after all.

We're big enough to be champions mate. We're also big enough that as I say, they can pass as many FFP rules and regs as they want. We'll still continue to grow as club.

As for what you've posted above. I've neither the time nor the inclination to lecture you about FFP, and where it sits within EU law. If you are going to take as gospel something UEFA have posted on their website then I wish you the best of luck.

But ask yourself how it comes to pass that PSG have signed David Luiz for 50 million pound, or how Monaco have bought an entire team in the last few years, and aren't afraid of these regulations. If the idea is to limit what clubs like City and Paris can do, then over the long term they will fail miserably.

 

[bizzaro]

We're big enough to be champions mate. We're also big enough that as I say, they can pass as many FFP rules and regs as they want. We'll still continue to grow as club.

As for what you've posted above. I've neither the time nor the inclination to lecture you about FFP, and where it sits within EU law. If you are going to take as gospel something UEFA have posted on their website then I wish you the best of luck.

But ask yourself how it comes to pass that PSG have signed David Luiz for 50 million pound, or how Monaco have bought an entire team in the last few years, and aren't afraid of these regulations. If the idea is to limit what clubs like City and Paris can do, then over the long term they will fail miserably.

It won't be a 50million fine next season.

It'll be 75 or a 100million.

Its called "the principle of proportionality". This year was a warning. Next year you'll get hit harder.


The season after it'll be a European ban. You'll cry to the courts and the legislators will say. Sorry.

We told you so.

Oh and you still won't get Ross Barkley.

 

[The Other Blues]

The ability to attract sponsors globally. Not mainly from your owners. Match revenue, (you have already said the Arabs keep ticket prices low), that sort of thing. Your TV money is similar to everyone else, but I just dont see how your matchday revenue and global sponsorship is a patch on some other clubs. Certainly cant see how it is enough to generate a profit allowing you to spend £100m plus every summer.

I think you underestimate just what kind of sponsorship revenues come from sustained success in the PL and sustained appearances in the CL.

Overall you have to look at how much the club has grown since the takeover, and how wide it's appeal currently is. Match day revenue accounts for a tiny proportion of any top European club's yearly turnover. Most of the money will come from corporate sponsors, and TV money. We're already in the Chelsea, Arsenal bracket (Liverpool are miles behind) and we are growing at a scary rate.

We've got a very capable man in Ferran Soriano in charge.

 

[The Other Blues]

It won't be a 50million fine next season.

It'll be 75 or a 100million.

Its called "the principle of proportionality". This year was a warning. Next year you'll get hit harder.


The season after it'll be a European ban. You'll cry to the courts and the legislators will say. Sorry.

We told you so.

Oh and you still won't get Ross Barkley.

Hahahaha. Honestly, I'm going to enjoy sticking around. Remember posts on a forum are easy to dig up later on.

 

[Jacob]

Ross Barkley's had one good season under his belt and the rumours abound about him leaving. How many years did you get out of Rooney? How many did you get out Jeffers? When players reach a certain level of hype, especially English players, they will move. I didn't create these imbalances in football so there's no point in getting arsey because you don't like hearing the truth.

You've just said its hype...and that's all it is. Your red neighbour's "people" tried that low bid charade over the alleged joint bid for Felllaini and Baines...and look what happened there. I would suggest that instead of rattling round another team's forum waxing lyrically about the fiscal affairs of your team like a cut and paste 6th Form Economics project, you should commit to memory that there are two words to act as an air raid siren to Ross Barkley regarding your club. Jack Rodwell.

 

[SunKing]

He'll sign a new contract within the next 6 months. Then, based on his development in the coming years and our success or lack of it, will stay/leave for a grossly inflated price.